Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a safe, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add operational context. 'Sourced fixes' usefully implies answers come with citations, but nothing is said about result shape, what happens when no fix is found, or whether it consults a knowledge base versus other tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, then illustrative examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, though the four-item example list is on the edge of being longer than needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input well but leaves the return contract implicit. An agent knows when to call it and roughly what to pass, but not what kinds of results to expect back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's example symptom strings show the expected granularity and phrasing for the 'symptom' argument, which meaningfully guides value construction beyond 'What is going wrong, in the user's words.'

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('look up sourced fixes') with a specific resource ('a Grok Bot problem') and backs it with four concrete symptom examples. It is clearly distinct from the sibling template/install tools, though it never explicitly names them as out of scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The examples ('routine not running', 'skills missing after import', 'plugin will not connect', 'uses too much usage') give an agent clear triggers for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to alternatives for non-diagnostic queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.